Reporting System 2.0

OraelOrael Member, Administrator, Moderator, Gods Posts: 319 Creator
I think at this time, it's safe to say that the new reporting system that we implemented hasn't really panned out and doesn't really feel effective.

The general feeling is that it is arduous to use and takes up quite a bit of time to be implemented and it can be incredibly frustrating when you spend time drumming up support and effort getting people to vote, just to find it doesn't reach the threshold or it gets rejected. There's also the fact that because there is a threshold involved that needs to be met, players are not interested in voting for what they really think, but instead voting to drive the report to the next step, even if they don't agree with it. 

With those general feelings in mind, I've come up with a new idea to adapt the current system into. I want to note that this would be an easy adaptation, and would not interfere with finishing off timequakes or starting on the mage revamp. It's something that can be done while waiting for feedback on mage proposals for instance.  

Reporting System 2.0

Reporting System 2.0 would remove reporting being open year-round and instead would be integrated into the development process. We would strive to open reports up 2-3 times a year (every 4-6 months) and once they are submitted, we would take time to make the decisions on the reports (which would be dependent on the number of reports submitted) and once decisions are rendered, we would then immediately work on implementing those reports that are approved. 

The submission process would be two stages. The first stage would last about 15 days. During this time, anyone who meets the requirements (currently 5 vote weight and > lvl 30, but up to debate) can place up to 3 reports. This again, would be by registration and not per character. During the first 15 days, reports can be edited and changed and what not, but would not be able to be commented on or voted on. They would still remain anonymous. 

After the first stage, any report submitted automatically goes into the second stage. The second stage will last another 15 days. Reports will no longer be able to be edited. At this time, players can then vote on reports. Voting options would be Support, Support with Changes or Reject. In order to vote for Support with Changes or Reject, you would need to submit a comment first explaining why. Every player will be able to comment once on a report. All votes and all comments will remain hidden from players. This is in order to stop the envoy war style fights that erupt on reports.

Once the report finishes the second stage, it will be decided on. The three decisions are accept, reject and hold. Accept means we accept it and will implement it. Reject means we will not implement it and Hold means that we like it, but we are not ready to commit the time it takes to implement. We will not give a timeframe on when a hold report will be implemented, it will just be indefinite status. It could be that we do a major rework and are able to work it in with that, or we decide we want to implement it. This category is in response to us rejecting reports that we like but don't have time to do. A kind of middle ground.

Once decisions are rendered and accepted reports are implemented, reports will then be closed until the next time we open them.

If we do decide to go this way, then we'll like just turn off the ability to report things currently and let whatever is up through the current process. I would strive to implement every report we've approved through the current system before moving to a new system.

Let me know your thoughts.

«1

Comments

  • XenthosXenthos Shadow Lord Member Posts: 6,685 Transcendent
    edited May 3
    I'm not 100% sure on the time-frame suggested here, it does feel long (2 cycles a year especially is not a lot).
    Aside from the timeframe, I do (obviously) feel that they need a rework since I keep submitting report ideas on that end. :P  I like the "hold" option, and very much like the removal of thresholds.
    I don't like the removal of comments.  I think that they are very important.  Take, for example, the current report about Totems and the log when they un-carve.  The person who wrote it doesn't seem to actually know how totems work.  Looking at the rest, on almost all reports the comments are used in a constructive manner (helping shape the final report, allowing for the modification of solutions, and a generally better report throughout).  If people cannot see comments, it's entirely on your shoulders to track down any assertion rendered (instead of having fact-checking by other players ala "hey this already exists" or whatever).  A conversation with comments is important to the process, I feel.
    Where this breaks down is when someone writes a contentious report; when someone targets a report at another group, even stretching logic to try to fit their end goal.  Hiding comments doesn't really change much about this.  If this is what reports are going to be about, people will just write comment-less reports and you'll still have to deal with it.  The fight will just be the reports themselves, even if the rest of it is no longer visible.
    Preferably (in my mind at least) you'd keep comments in general and reward cooperation.  I'm not 100% sure how you could do this... most things are probably also open to abuse.  But I think at least one problem is that reports are locked down by their creator who may choose to ignore any and all input and stick to "my way is the only way," and some people have objections to "counter-reports" (reports with the same problem but a different solution set-- edit: sometimes even the original solution from an earlier stage of the report) and see that as warring itself which leaves you with no recourse at all.
    I know that you watch reports.  If a report has signs of being contentious, would it be possible to flag that report specifically?  This flag would lock the report down, hide all comments / votes, and put it in the state as you say (1 comment only).  Additionally, people who think the report is unfair in some way would have the ability to present their own solution during the first 15-day window that would become a mechanical Solution 4 on the report for the second half (and be able to be voted on alongside any of the existing solutions).  This new solution would need to be something that is vetted & approved by the admin (in order to make sure that it's not just "You suck" or some other obviously trolly response).  This means that if you write a report that is intentionally going to extremes, it will be possible for people to register their preference for something more tempered in a more positive manner than just comment bombing.  Preferably with the goal of people working together towards some end, instead of against each other at every opportunity.
    image
  • VatulVatul Member Posts: 238 Expert
    I like this adjustment. In this 2.0 proposal would players votes need to reach a threshold before admins take a look, and if so will this threshold be variable on our current population? So if it fluctuates, the threshold changes to make sure these reports can still be supported and seen?

    This looks like a really mindful start to preventing envoy war style reporting, and countering. I dig it.
    The cool night-time breeze shivers in the arid caress of the streets of the capital city, brushing the earthen taste of dust across your lips.
    *
    A blessed silence falls upon the city for the moment, most activity confined to the towers and the
    theatre due to the snowy weather.
    *
    Pinprick points of light twinkle in the deep black overhead, their brightness full of a cold,
    hungering malice.
  • OraelOrael Member, Administrator, Moderator, Gods Posts: 319 Creator
    Vatul said:
    I like this adjustment. In this 2.0 proposal would players votes need to reach a threshold before admins take a look, and if so will this threshold be variable on our current population? So if it fluctuates, the threshold changes to make sure these reports can still be supported and seen?

    This looks like a really mindful start to preventing envoy war style reporting, and countering. I dig it.
    No thresholds at all, any report submitted would get an admin decision.
  • KalnidKalnid Member Posts: 549 Fabled
    What scale are you thinking of for reports in this system? You mention each person having up to three, so I'm imagining each would individually be roughly the same significance as current. Would there be a way to handle larger changes like minor class revamps, or is preference for splitting that sort of thing up and making each part able to stand on its own?
    Just to be clear, S/SC/R voting is for the sake of expressing opinion and only determines outcome in the sense of swaying admin opinion? whoops already answered this one
    Being able to edit your comment would be nice. Having some way to ask the author about intentions/reasons would also be nice but I'm not sure how you'd do that while a: maintaining anonymity and b: avoiding the current situation.
  • PysynnePysynne Member Posts: 103 Adept
    I am 100% for invisible comments and happy to see the support with change requires a comment.
  • MakaiMakai Member Posts: 413 Adept
    I think a good blend would be for the first submission period, let comments be visible so that it can be edited, if needed, before going into the second period. I wholly believe second period should be blind, don't let people see the votes or comments and keep the requirement to comment in order to reject or support with changes.

    As for contentious reports, this will do away with that and I firmly believe that 'counter reports' should be tossed out. There's trying to fix something to bring it inline, then there's just being malicious because someone is touching your toys.  Case in point, the Night report 04191101 has so much infighting and threats of this, when most of the comments aren't even addressing the solutions, and most just outright not being helpful to the process. We need to be able to place reports on one another's skills, because trusting players to care about how imbalanced their skills are seems to be too difficult.

    Thus, I'm fine with opposing skillsets being reported on at the same time, and we'll definitely know which reports are just retaliatory because of a 'contentious' report, in which case it can either be reviewed and allowed, or be taken down like the last 'counter report' was.
  • XenthosXenthos Shadow Lord Member Posts: 6,685 Transcendent
    Makai said:
    I think a good blend would be for the first submission period, let comments be visible so that it can be edited, if needed, before going into the second period. I wholly believe second period should be blind, don't let people see the votes or comments and keep the requirement to comment in order to reject or support with changes.

    As for contentious reports, this will do away with that and I firmly believe that 'counter reports' should be tossed out. There's trying to fix something to bring it inline, then there's just being malicious because someone is touching your toys.  Case in point, the Night report 04191101 has so much infighting and threats of this, when most of the comments aren't even addressing the solutions, and most just outright not being helpful to the process. We need to be able to place reports on one another's skills, because trusting players to care about how imbalanced their skills are seems to be too difficult.

    Thus, I'm fine with opposing skillsets being reported on at the same time, and we'll definitely know which reports are just retaliatory because of a 'contentious' report, in which case it can either be reviewed and allowed, or be taken down like the last 'counter report' was.

    There's also just being malicious with your reports and not being honest with your solutions.  To which I would point at the very same report.  The solutions and the problem are disconnected from one another, and other solutions presented were rejected out-of-hand because they didn't fit the report writer's desired intent (which isn't stated in the problem).  If you don't want report wars, that's the kind of thing you need to have some escape valve from.  If you can't write another report with the same problem set and the solutions that you presented in the comments but were ignored, what can you do?  This just feeds the us vs. them mentality.  Note that I'm not suggesting removing the ability to report on someone else's skills because I do think that it is needed, but I am suggesting that there be something that encourages honest reporting with an effort to actually work with others vs. going nuclear and refusing to listen outright.
    This doesn't do anything about that at all, hence my offering an idea to try and address that end as well.
    PS: I'm not talking about "counter-reports" such as "Hey you're nerfing my ability so I'm going to try to nerf yours," I'm talking about "Here is your report's problem, here are the solutions that I think are better" as a second, dueling report.
    image
  • VatulVatul Member Posts: 238 Expert
    Kalnid said:
    What scale are you thinking of for reports in this system? You mention each person having up to three, so I'm imagining each would individually be roughly the same significance as current. Would there be a way to handle larger changes like minor class revamps, or is preference for splitting that sort of thing up and making each part able to stand on its own?
    Just to be clear, S/SC/R voting is for the sake of expressing opinion and only determines outcome in the sense of swaying admin opinion? whoops already answered this one
    Being able to edit your comment would be nice. Having some way to ask the author about intentions/reasons would also be nice but I'm not sure how you'd do that while a: maintaining anonymity and b: avoiding the current situation.
    Editing comments would be a boon. Just to add some clarification if you forget. Like a short decaying window of when you could edit. And that notification could be pinged to subscribed envoys and admin.
    The cool night-time breeze shivers in the arid caress of the streets of the capital city, brushing the earthen taste of dust across your lips.
    *
    A blessed silence falls upon the city for the moment, most activity confined to the towers and the
    theatre due to the snowy weather.
    *
    Pinprick points of light twinkle in the deep black overhead, their brightness full of a cold,
    hungering malice.
  • HegemoneHegemone Member Posts: 55 Adept
    Could we please get pagination on the report 2.0? My poor dumb ass wasn't paying attention and one evening was going through reports and I failed to notice 45 comments on the said night one.

    I don't have a dog in this race. It was an honest mistake looking at it. I was not prepared for the endless scroll of text. I thought I'd broken something.

    Please save our poor eyes from this :(
  • OraelOrael Member, Administrator, Moderator, Gods Posts: 319 Creator
    Hegemone said:
    Could we please get pagination on the report 2.0? My poor dumb ass wasn't paying attention and one evening was going through reports and I failed to notice 45 comments on the said night one.

    I don't have a dog in this race. It was an honest mistake looking at it. I was not prepared for the endless scroll of text. I thought I'd broken something.

    Please save our poor eyes from this :(
    Yeah, absolutely. Oversight on my part, definitely part of this one, or the current one, whichever way we go.
  • MaligornMaligorn Windborne Member Posts: 2,968 Transcendent
    Incredibly huge improvement. Not being able to fight amongst ourselves in comments and shifting more responsibility onto the admin to make a decision is a huge step to easing hostilities between players and start closing up the rift between us.

    image
  • DeichtineDeichtine Member Posts: 2,016 Transcendent
    This sounds pretty good. Its similar to Imperians system in just being one big open period.

    One thing they did though is have semi regular townhall meetings where odd issues could be brought up. Maybe the response was to just report it sometimes but there were plenty of times when they fixed or adjusted skill issues on the stop when it was displayed to them. Other times it was a good place to highlight specific major bugs that hadn't been looked at.

    Could be nice to start doing a quick townhall here, it could maybe work to help build community as well talking with everyone face to face.
  • OraelOrael Member, Administrator, Moderator, Gods Posts: 319 Creator
    I wanted to go ahead and address a couple of points since the conversation seemed to slow down a bit.

    The limitation to a few times a year is kind of the compromise on removing the thresholds. One of the major goals of using thresholds was to limit what reports got through so there was less work on our side of things. Ideally, the reports that the community at large wanted, were the ones that made it through. While this led to situations where people felt they couldn't get their reports through (and often would just keep submitting it until it did get through), it was an effort to reduce workload on our end and hopefully prevent situations where reports sat in limbo for up to a year (which is what was happening under Envoys). So by removing thresholds, the compromise is that we're going to limit to only a few times a year but allow for more reporting and guaranteeing that each report gets looked at.

    As far as scope and scale. Again, I don't want to limit what you can and cannot report (outside new design templates and other things that have cropped up). I really want reporting things to be something that everyone feels like they can suggest and contribute things to make Lusternia better. I do think moving to a system like this would enable players to put together a comprehensive set of reports that could work to improve a class overall. To be upfront - how easy something is to implement is the second most important facet taken into account. A lot of times it's weighing the overall benefit to the effort required to implement. So a series of reports that makes small changes to a skillset to improve its viability is much more likely to be accepted all together than a series of reports that require new mechanics and complete reworks of skills. Again, this isn't to say you can't report it and that it won't be approved, but just to make things transparent about our process.

    In regards to comments, based on the posts here, I am considering allowing comments during the first stage, but again limiting it to one comment. This is tricky because I don't want arguments and fights erupting on reports. I also don't want people to edit their one comment 15 times to keep responding back and forth that way. I am aware that by making comments hidden, we're more likely to get these retaliatory 'tit for tat' reports. Honestly, there really isn't any way we're going to reasonably prevent malicious reports because it's going to be difficult to prove intent. 

    One thing I've noticed lately is that there's been a lot more of looking at mechanics and skills in a vacuum and saying things like 'well class A has it, so it should be fine that Class B has it too' or 'If you're taking it away from Class C, then take it from Class D too.' Historically, this kind of logic and reasoning has always been shot down. Just because Class A has it is not a reason for or against class B having it either. Removing it from Class C is not a reason for or against removing it from Class D. We shouldn't be looking at specific mechanics in a vacuum but instead taking the whole skillset into consideration when proposing changes. You should be able to justify your argument with more than just 'such and such class can do this so I should be able to as well.'


  • PysynnePysynne Member Posts: 103 Adept
    Are we going to be able to request SR's? Talking with a few old envoys about Moondancer, it seems a mini SR might be better than trying to get through multiple reports over a year in order to bring them up to par. #waitsforBUTSUCCUMBcomments
  • OraelOrael Member, Administrator, Moderator, Gods Posts: 319 Creator
    Possibly, we can discuss it, but it would be on a case by case basis dependent on various things.
  • OraelOrael Member, Administrator, Moderator, Gods Posts: 319 Creator
    One thing was pointed out is that it's with requiring responses for Support w/ Changes and Reject, we may see people not like a report and not vote because they don't want to comment.

    With that in mind, we'll probably just limit the required response to support w/ changes and allow both accept and reject without commenting.
  • EnyaEnya Member Posts: 448 Gifted
    edited May 5
    What I would suggest is untying the commenting and player feedback portion of making reports from the actual report period. Allow players to workshop and generate consensus for reports at any time, so that they can organize themselves for when there is an open period. 

    I don't like the inability to comment or vote in the time before submission or the 15 day workshop period, which is useless without those two things anyways. If all of the thresholds are going away I don't understand the need to limit these things, just give report authors more tools to moderate their reports and measure the support.
  • EnyaEnya Member Posts: 448 Gifted
    Two other suggestions:

    1) some formal means for players to raise big issues that might crop up outside of a reporting period. This could be as simple as having that be a function for the envoy channel, or for some kind of off-period voting mechanic with a high threshold (adjusted for factionalism), or even just someone scanning over the extant reports being workshopped to pick out scary problem statements. 

    2) Some function of envoy input/filtering to help further prioritize reports. That's basically what the envoy systems have always been, a way of filtering and prioritizing change requests. Either by having a bunch of ostensibly experienced people take in the comments and suggestions from their orgs and adjudicate which go to report, or through the democratized voting threshold process. 

    Perhaps at all of the stages, have envoy comments marked out for the purposes of providing factual/experiential input. Or at the end once the report is finalized a envoy polling vote opened for a bit to push to the front the more impactful reports. My understanding is that this is a feature of the Classlead system in the other games, that don't require "votes" as much as a seconding (and possibly thirding) in the manner of designs being mortal reviewed. Not sure exactly what form this input would take, but I think it's a waste of the resources volunteered by envoys to do otherwise. 
  • EnyaEnya Member Posts: 448 Gifted
    edited May 6


    I suggest the following setup instead of the extant one posted in the OP of the thread. Most of the numbers are just random inserts - except for the 3 reports per active person submission limit. 


    Reports Phase One
    ----------------
    This phase will be constant. No window. 

    Each player above a certain threshold can create and maintain up to 5 total reports. Any 3(?) of these can be "Under Consideration". This works similar to how the consideration phase does now: it goes up for other players to see, comment on, vote. These comments and votes are purely for the benefit of the report writer's process. At any point players can take their reports back from consideration to draft to edit them, change around solutions, wipe comments and so on.

    Personally, I don't like anonymous comments at this stage, they should at minimum be given a consistent label within the report (aka, the first commenter is always called "Bob" and then at any point that they comment or vote on that report it's labeled Bob and you know it's that one person again). [Edit: The report owner would be marked as such, too]. The whole point is to give tools to decide how good the solutions are and how much honest support they're likely to gain, being able to go "Oh, it's not actually 10 different people saying they don't like this solution in the comments, it's one really loud guy who is giving everyone so much of a headache they don't want to even think about this report" and... ignore them. Heck, I think it'd be a good idea to give some measure of moderation control to the report writer to turn comments on or off, or even specific commenters on and off - at this point it's entirely for their benefit to take or not take comments to improve the report. 

    I would put a cooldown on shifting reports to or from Consideration, so you aren't just constantly bouncing them up and down all the time to give everyone a headache and keep refreshing comments. Also, players should be encouraged to delete reports they decide against and start a fresh report for a new idea instead of repurposing the same number - so that comments can be archived for admins just in case and not be a total mess. 

    EDIT: Perhaps do that nifty comment nesting trick, but instead when the report is taken down and edited have there be a line at the top of the comments with reversion logs that when clicked/input expand out to the older versions of the report and its comments? 



    Reports Phase Two
    ----------------
    15 day window to decide what to set. 15 day window to vote and comment. 

    In this phase, players select up to 3 of their reports to set to  Pending. Comments are somewhat limited, and invisible. This is everyone's last chance to summarize their concerns about/support for the report. In the locked period envoys are expected to weigh in if there's any weird niche interactions related to their org and its classes with comments/input. Perhaps some second layer of semi-visible comments called "endorsements"?

    It might also be good to look into how classleads work in the other games. If they have a small upvote threshold it might be possible to open up the number of reports per person but have some other metric by which they're funneled down from there. 



    EDIT: also, I'd bring back specifically selected envoys from each org for this purpose, not just the elected leaders. Perhaps default to that but allow them to instead nominate someone else from their org to be the envoy. 


  • OraelOrael Member, Administrator, Moderator, Gods Posts: 319 Creator
    We're not bringing back specifically selected envoys at this time.

    I'm not really sure that allowing players that post reports the ability to turn on and off comments or really moderate them in any way is a good idea. 

    I'll think about having a general open period where players can put up reports for discussion.
  • XenthosXenthos Shadow Lord Member Posts: 6,685 Transcendent
    I'm just going to reiterate that I strongly feel making reports more collaborative than us vs. them would be a Very Good Thing, before we end up with a bunch of one-sided reports on Night / Nihilism / Necromancy / Moon / Harmonics / Aeonics / Etc.  If a report writer ever gets to the point that they're going "I'm ignoring everything, this is my report and I'm not interested in any input or cooperation or even trying to reach a balanced middle ground," there is a fundamental breakdown in the process.
    image
  • MalariousMalarious Member Posts: 624 Gifted
    So, unpopular opinion/approach.  The report process should be collaborative before the report is made. 

    The biggest problem is most reports turn into:
    * Submit report that may or may not be needed.
    * Make case.
    * Someone counters with unrelated point. Some discussion begins to follow this.
    * Spam comments result.

    I would like to suggest a 2 month cycle.   Odd months would be a period to submit reports. During this month (which should be made by the 15th or required finalizing before the month starts as a topic), people merely discuss the idea, not the solutions.  This is to come to a reasonable understanding that there is a problem and then work out how to tackle it. Conversely, we state a problem and our chosen solutions, which may or may not cater to the problem given.  At the end of this period, Oversight (Orael and co) agree or disagree that there is indeed a potential issue. 

    In even months, you create the actual solutions and implement discussion on the specifics of the answers. 

    I acknowledge that this may be more complicated, but the biggest issue is when points degrade or turn into back and forth. Establishing there is a problem is not the same as having a solution, and I would love for there to be a requirement to find a potential issue first. I wouldn't mind a "furies thoughts" on the decision to move to stage 2 or not. We currently have debate on both the problem itself and the solution. 

    /unpopularIdea
  • XenthosXenthos Shadow Lord Member Posts: 6,685 Transcendent
    I don't know that that's completely unpopular.  My main idea for collaboration was to "unlock" reports from their author (at least a little bit).  If alternative solutions can be proposed by other people and added to the report with admin approval (no trolly solutions like "do nothing," if you want that just vote No on everything), this incentivizes actually trying to come up with real solutions from the get-go.  If you don't bother, then most likely someone's going to propose something simpler / cleaner / more direct.  People will be able to vote for solutions they like, instead of simply railing against a set of bad options.  The goal is to be more positive and supportive of making changes vs. reports that are one side approving, the other naysaying, and everyone being angry forever.
    Having a problem set first, and then people working out solutions after that, is just taking that to more of an extreme.
    image
  • EnyaEnya Member Posts: 448 Gifted
    edited May 7
    I only included the bit about being able to turn off comments because of the hesitation I saw at allowing comments at all from the admins. Presumably this is to insulate report writers from too much backlash or brigading. With even slight moderation tools players could then detect the brigading and self police it. My own preference would be for the commenting system from the guild-based envoy system: no limits, not masked. That makes it possible to put together a pattern of behavior and (hopefully) hold people accountable for it.  

    I'm also not sure that a "true collaborative" approach allowing direct addition of solutions to reports is a good idea at all. Sometimes a problem statement has a variety of 'solution's that slightly alleviate the problem but don't address the full breadth of the issue, or indeed that appear to solve the problem but cause other issues/actually make things worse in practice. The addition of these solutions can cause problems. People would be free to make those suggestions in their final (closed) commenting period if so desired.

     The idea with having a wide time in which to put up a report, take in comments, revise the report, and iterate until you're happy with the result. "No" votes won't mean losing time on the window, or failing to meet a threshold by dragging down momentum, just some departure from the suggested solutions. Personally, it's why I'd like to have at minimum some kind of persistent/masked labeling instead of just totally disconnected and anonymous comments/votes, if not just attaching everyone's names to some parts of the system. Not report writing and submission, but input? If the report writer notices "huh this player just votes no in this pattern regardless of the contents" they should be able to take that fact into account when considering adjustments to their report. As noted, a minimum of internally consistent masks applied to comments and carried over to votes would be great. Again "huh, someone voted no on all solutions but they had no comment/their comment had nothing to do with the content of the report" type situations would then be visible. 
  • MaligornMaligorn Windborne Member Posts: 2,968 Transcendent
    Xenthos said:
    I'm just going to reiterate that I strongly feel making reports more collaborative than us vs. them would be a Very Good Thing, before we end up with a bunch of one-sided reports on Night / Nihilism / Necromancy / Moon / Harmonics / Aeonics / Etc.  If a report writer ever gets to the point that they're going "I'm ignoring everything, this is my report and I'm not interested in any input or cooperation or even trying to reach a balanced middle ground," there is a fundamental breakdown in the process.
    Sometimes report writers take opinions into consideration and decide that they don't want to include commenters' changes or thoughts in their report. That's entirely their prerogative. If I walked into a Crow report of yours that tried to make carrion less awful (as an example) and commented "yeah I think sol <x> needs <y>" and you decide "no, I don't think that's appropriate", you shouldn't feel the need to compromise. This is without factoring in partisan opinions and all the other old problems we've spun through these past few years.

    Either way, if you can't see what people are commenting, you won't be able to change or modify your solutions. I think that's okay. It will make people more careful about writing the report in the first place.

    You won't need to "highball" solutions anymore like some haggler at some night market (i.e. ask for some values you know people won't like and "pretend" to compromise. All those kinds of behaviors can be abolished if the admin start taking more responsibility in report decisions.

    Does that mean Orael will get more heat? Probably. The admin become a focal point for "this is why my skillsets are bad!". But that's way better than "some player is actively trying to keep my skills bad!".

    image
  • EnyaEnya Member Posts: 448 Gifted
    Yeah I can see that too. Being able to pick having comments visible to third-party observers while working on a reports helps to thread that needle for me. I don't understand the point of having a working period at all after which players can revise their reports if there isn't some mechanism for feedback beyond just straight voting up/down on solutions, however. Voting is a practically useless measure for this kind of thing. 
     
    I also know that given 3 reports for months on end and wanting them to be good ones I feel like I'd really want some feedback and more than a week or two to get it, not knowing if the next cycle will be in 3 months or 6.  The only way to get that without some kind of commenting mechanic would be to go to the forums [or the much vilified discord] at which point the anonymity is silly anyways. 

    As a sidebar I do think it's a bit of a problem to be having people make arguments against your report (presumably) and not have those be in any way visible to you and just... trust administrators to sift through what could be common misunderstandings that they just happen to share, or misdirection they fall for by virtue of being busy. Neither of these things are without precedent in the course of reporting history. 
  • DeichtineDeichtine Member Posts: 2,016 Transcendent
    Remove the solutions from the reports totally.

    This may sound a bit odd but hear me out hear. Reports should be there to highlight issues. No matter how unbiased you think you are everyone does suffer from some level of personal bias and if you are raising an issue that is going to show on your solutions.

    Leave the solutions entirely in the hands of the admin.

    Trying to do game design but a democratic forum sounds like its causing more trouble to the community than its solving. By all means get players to post logs to identify the issue, have changes on the test realms so people can test and give feedback but leave all solutions entirely in the admin hands.
  • KeeganKeegan Member Posts: 54 Apprentice
    edited May 7
    Provided someone capable is handling the reports, and when it comes to our most recent anomalies? furies? divine? (however this is handled, but I think the changes of our recent anomalies have been good) I'm pretty comfortable, I'm in favour of leaving resolutions entirely in the hands of the admin.

    Plus, I'd totally down for them coming up with unique sol 4s that give new counterplay instead of some hotfix us players come up with.
  • XenthosXenthos Shadow Lord Member Posts: 6,685 Transcendent
    Maligorn said:
    Sometimes report writers take opinions into consideration and decide that they don't want to include commenters' changes or thoughts in their report. That's entirely their prerogative. If I walked into a Crow report of yours that tried to make carrion less awful (as an example) and commented "yeah I think sol <x> needs <y>" and you decide "no, I don't think that's appropriate", you shouldn't feel the need to compromise. This is without factoring in partisan opinions and all the other old problems we've spun through these past few years.

    Either way, if you can't see what people are commenting, you won't be able to change or modify your solutions. I think that's okay. It will make people more careful about writing the report in the first place.

    You won't need to "highball" solutions anymore like some haggler at some night market (i.e. ask for some values you know people won't like and "pretend" to compromise. All those kinds of behaviors can be abolished if the admin start taking more responsibility in report decisions.

    Does that mean Orael will get more heat? Probably. The admin become a focal point for "this is why my skillsets are bad!". But that's way better than "some player is actively trying to keep my skills bad!".
    I think you have identified the most glaring problem with reports as they exist: The notion that a report is "my report" or "your report."  That is, by definition, partisan.  In past iterations of reporting, things have been tried to attempt to alleviate this, such as "You cannot report on a skillset you don't have unless you make a good-faith effort to get buy-in from users of that skillset" or even just "If you're consistently being unproductive we will remove you from envoys."  Obviously they were not perfect, but they were at least an attempt at a moderating influence, one which simply does not exist now.  Anyone can write a report, regardless of how much or little they know, and can choose to "ask for values people won't like and not even pretend to "compromise").
    If someone has an idea for improving carrion in a crow report, why the heck not let them add it?  If it's a bad idea, it probably won't get support.  If it's a good idea, then great!  Either way it helps inform the final decision from the admin (who can also choose to reject bad solutions on their own) and hopefully moves things forward.
    We need to kill this idea of report ownership.  It does nothing but poison the process.  Work together to make improvements, not against each other to tear each other apart.
    image
  • MakaiMakai Member Posts: 413 Adept
    The problem with the approach of "Can only report if you have the skillset" is that you are then hoping people are willing to give an actual critical look at their abilities and go, "Oh gosh, we're a tad overtuned!" and submit a report to fix themselves. That won't happen , in any skillset. Ideally people should be able to open a report on any skillset, list their issues and carry on with people who have experience going against the skillset and the users. In this case, it is up to the users to show why the reported problem isn't actually a problem, or if it is identified a problem, offer ways to improve the solution so that all are in agreement.
Sign In or Register to comment.